4 ms·

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way thr

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -Isaac Asimov or more to the point "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Colbert You're not entitled to be heard. That isn't a tenement of Democracy or Liberty. You're entitled to be able to speak (as long as you don't hurt others rights). So what is un-american thinking that Youtube needs to allow conspiracies and crazy un-proven, and way out there content.

Vomzor 6y ago
> Reality has a well-known liberal bias Except when it comes to nuclear, GMO, gender science, nature vs nurture, I'm sure there are other things I'm not remembering right now.
- mudil 6y ago
  Actually, reality is quite conservative, as in evolutionary theory. Our wishes have a liberal bias.
- keepper 6y ago
  Thank you for making my point. Not sure why I'm replying, as its wholely offtopic - Nuclear, i think you should read up why people are against it. ( spoiler, it isn't the science... but maybe you should think about who can do it effectively vs the potential risks of doing it wrong... or you know, the imbalance of global power when only a few countries could generate.. well, power ) - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. - Gender science. Stop worrying about what other people do with their life, worry about your life my fellow human. - Nature vs nurture. Sure, an argument that goes back B.C., and now you think this is a conservative vs liberal? Wait, is this Paleo conservatism? lol Again, not even relating to the argument at hand. There's no "true" side in any of these, as two of them are well, not science. And the other two, will continue to evolve with science. But nice try :) Oh... and thank you for taking the quote of a comedian ( and my quip, so seriously). Any arguments about the first one?
  - Vomzor 6y ago
    My point was that liberals have their own biases and can be ignorant. For example, in the nurture vs nature debate, the blank slate has been disproven for years. Everything is heritable, yet the left clings to the idea of all disparities being caused by culture because it fits their ideology. -> You can't fix nature with policy but you can if it's nurture.
  - defen 6y ago
    > - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. Why specifically is it bad? If you want non-GMO food you can just grow your own.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes. The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicology_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicol... >and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations? Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy? >The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields. AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers. Resistance to whatever usually comes at a cost, so in the wild the superweeds will get out-competed by their non-resistant counterparts.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >gender science, nature vs nurture, These topics, to be charitable, are heavily debated in biology and sociology, at least to some degree - look up "nature nurture" on Google Scholar and you'll find as much scientific debate, and recently attempts to transcend the debate, as you could read in two lifetimes. I don't think most "liberals" are even opposed to nuclear and GMO.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Vomzor 6y ago

> Reality has a well-known liberal bias Except when it comes to nuclear, GMO, gender science, nature vs nurture, I'm sure there are other things I'm not remembering right now.

mudil 6y ago
Actually, reality is quite conservative, as in evolutionary theory. Our wishes have a liberal bias.
keepper 6y ago
Thank you for making my point. Not sure why I'm replying, as its wholely offtopic - Nuclear, i think you should read up why people are against it. ( spoiler, it isn't the science... but maybe you should think about who can do it effectively vs the potential risks of doing it wrong... or you know, the imbalance of global power when only a few countries could generate.. well, power ) - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. - Gender science. Stop worrying about what other people do with their life, worry about your life my fellow human. - Nature vs nurture. Sure, an argument that goes back B.C., and now you think this is a conservative vs liberal? Wait, is this Paleo conservatism? lol Again, not even relating to the argument at hand. There's no "true" side in any of these, as two of them are well, not science. And the other two, will continue to evolve with science. But nice try :) Oh... and thank you for taking the quote of a comedian ( and my quip, so seriously). Any arguments about the first one?
- Vomzor 6y ago
  My point was that liberals have their own biases and can be ignorant. For example, in the nurture vs nature debate, the blank slate has been disproven for years. Everything is heritable, yet the left clings to the idea of all disparities being caused by culture because it fits their ideology. -> You can't fix nature with policy but you can if it's nurture.
- defen 6y ago
  > - GMO, again, same point above. "Sure you can have this great crop, no seeds". Again, GMO per say isn't bad, its the implementation that's bad. Why specifically is it bad? If you want non-GMO food you can just grow your own.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes. The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicology_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicol... >and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations? Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy? >The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields. AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers. Resistance to whatever usually comes at a cost, so in the wild the superweeds will get out-competed by their non-resistant counterparts.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>gender science, nature vs nurture, These topics, to be charitable, are heavily debated in biology and sociology, at least to some degree - look up "nature nurture" on Google Scholar and you'll find as much scientific debate, and recently attempts to transcend the debate, as you could read in two lifetimes. I don't think most "liberals" are even opposed to nuclear and GMO.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]